I think one of the dangers of this discussion is that we will dodge the difficulties by seizing on generalities, such as doctrine developed because challenges led the church to refine its doctrines. That could be true in some cases, but in other cases, the development is not apparently due to challenges. The continual development of Mariology was not primarily due to challenges, for example.

Within Protestantism, doctrines have developed over time that have nothing to do with the church being challenged, e.g. Sunday must be a day of rest, or “pastor” and “bishop” and “elder” no longer being used as synonyms. Numerous other examples could be given. Let’s not let ourselves off the hook with hand-waving generalities.

All I can say is – I sure am glad it is God who decides who is right and wrong and not any of us!
Saskia

I feel that I must point something out if it has not been pointed out already. The issue at hand is not the assumption, but the immaculate conception. The assumption is something that has been shown to be known as common knowledge in the church from the 1st century on (referenced in places such as Athanatius, Clement, and later Augustine.) In fact Martin Luther himself had no problem with venerating Mary.

The issue at hand is the immaculate conception, brought out by the catholic and protestant belief of Original Sin as being the original guilt of sin being passed on to all humanity instead of just the sin nature being passed on. In the Catholic view, Mary was viewed as sinless from birth, having never committed a sin. This allowed her to be completely “spotless” when she carried Jesus, fully God, in her womb, thus negating that Original Sin would be passed on to Jesus.

Also, both Catholic and Orthodox affirm that Mary is Theotokos, or mother of God. This came about at the Chalcedonean council and was a way of affirming Christ’s divinity against the heretical monophysite group which believed that Christ had two seperate natures, man and God. Again, in Orthodoxy, while Mary is revered and put in a special place, this does not negate the fact that at some time in her life, she could have, and most likely did sin (at least unknowingly, ie. wrong attitude, etc.) The Orthodox prefer to refer to this as a mystery and leave it to that.

I would also, humbly, have to disagree with you in your assumption about Orthodox being in a way unrefined in their theology. I, being a convert from protestantism, actually came to Orthodoxy because I believed that they possessed the fullness of the faith, (not that other sects did not possess parts of the historical Christian faith) but that the Orthodox had managed to keep the entirety of the Christian faith. For me, this was realized in how their apothetic theology came alive to me. There is a saying that an Orthodox saint said, “theology without action is the theology of the devil.”

For me, I experienced theology not as a study of God, but the living in God and being made to become like God, which is the reason Christ came, to reconcile God to man. This is called Patristic theology and I would encourage all of you to look into it, as it may in fact lead to a stronger spiritual life

Lastly, if anyone is interested in learning about the Orthodox faith, and why they believe some of the things that they do, I found that a good starting point is a short paper written by a priest named Stephen Freeman. You can read that paper here:

http://fatherstephen.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/one_storey_universe.pdf

Michael,

I think you have misunderstood or misrepresented the Orthodox position on doctrinal development. Sure they hold the Church Fathers and the early Eccumenical councils in high esteem but they can go past them. A good read would john Behr’s The way to Nicea and his 2 volume work The nicene Faith. in it he describes, amongst other things, how Orthodox Christians can believe in more than just the first 6 centuries. Which kind of does not make much sense since Palamas was not until much Later and they take a lot from him.

BH- CARL PETERSON

Ah, I don’t recall the worshiped passages, but you are very right that there are many verses which argue the other way, including the most convincing in my view, Thomas’ “My Lord and my God.”

Yet, the evidence does seem to be all over the place on this issue, and it is difficult to determine exactly “what the Apostles knew and when they knew it”. Sometimes they discuss things very much the way one would if talking about a human messiah who had been appointed, anointed and then glorified. And, there are a lot of passages from Jesus’ own lips that would lead his followers to think that as well. When I look at the evidence overall, it is still very inconclusive. Luckily, this “when the lights came on” issue is not really that important.

It is not as if this point would determine whether Jesus really WAS God all along. We all agree on that point, and that the Bible DOES indicate this, since ultimately John makes it crystal clear.

But, when looking at the history of the developing doctrines that Michael raises in this thread, I think that his point ultimately can’t be denied (that there WAS development, and on important issues), even if one does not agree that there was such development on that particular Christological issue.

Vance,

Many commentators have noticed that the quotation of the prophecy of Joel (Acts 2:21) where those who call upon the name of YHWH will be saved is connected to calling upon the name of Jesus later (Acts 2:38). The implication is that Peter saw Jesus as YHWH.

Also, Acts 2:34-36 should not be overlooked with Peter’s identification of Jesus as Kurios.

Lastly, the Gospels, on several occasions, say that the disciples “worshipped” Jesus.

Again I agree that understanding develops over time.

But I equally believe that when the last page of inspired writting was added to the canon of scripture then what is in those pages we can not add to. God inspired Paul, Peter and John when they were written.

Inspiration did not happen at the time Curly said “HeyMo, Hey Larry God is triune” that is ilumination as you all know.

I humbly and confidently believe that truth expressed in the scriptures by the authors was understood to some level and then expressed in the pages of Scripture. So we need to be careful so we don’t become guilty of adding to the scriptures or building a foundation on which we even elevate ourselves above the early church.

At least you are not saying I have to become Calvinist!

Vance, if you do not say the light turned on at the same time as I say the light turned on you are going to be banned from this form which is the first step in being banned from the kingdom of God.

Yes, Michael, I agree entirely about the “lights coming on” and we just differ regarding exactly how quickly they all came on!

I think that a lot had not “clicked” as early as the Acts 2 sermon, for example, and I would differ to some degree regarding the “Son of God” analysis.

But, still, the point is that the development occurred, and we must recognize it, not be afraid of it, and analyze it as objectively as possible, and see how this works while NOT challenging the validity of our doctrines.

The reason this is important is that these historical issues is exactly where some in the secular world want to attack. Sticking our head in the sand and refusing to even consider these issues leaves us unprepared to defend the validity of the doctrines we all hold.